The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1887-03-25
SUPREME COURT.
DECISION OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

laallllo, Deputy District Justice OF
Hamakua, Hawaii. Petition for
mandamus. The petitioner, by his
attorney Katsura, applied to me for
a writ Of mandamus, setting forth
that on the 10th of February, 1887,
the petitioner sued out from respon-
dent, who was Deputy District JUS
tice of the District of Hamakua,
Hawaii, summons against one w.
III. Purvis, of Kukulhaele, Hama
kua, Hawaii, the master of said pc
titioner under written labor con-
tract, to cancel said contract on the
ground of breach thereof, also
praying for costs, etc.
Both parties were summoned by
said respondent to appear before
him on the 18th February, 1897, and
they duly appeared, but the said
respondent refused and declined to
hear the case, and forfeited the
costs deposited by petitioner. The
petitioner prayed this Court to issue
writ of mandamus to show cause
why the said trial should not be
held.
The Court issued writ on the
9th of March, commanding the sad
respondent to hear the case without
delay or show cause why he should
not within ten days after the SER
vice of the writ upon him.
On the 21st of March an answer
came from respondent, admitting
that he issued summons on the
10th of February, 1887, against w.
III. Purvis ON the said Nakamura
Munataro to cancel the labor con-
tract between them, and the respon-
dent sat OH the 18th of Feb. as n Depu-
tyDistrict Justice of Hamakua to hear
the case. The petitioner claimed
that he was servant bound to
serve w. III. Purvis, the defendant,
under labor contract, and alleged
that the contract was broken by
defendant and the law of masters
and servants violated, and asked
the Court to annul the contract and
to award damages and costs to
plaintiff, in accordance with section
1,423 of the Civil Code.
Counsel for the defendant, j. X.
Kaunamano and u. Paakiki, urged
that the ,423d section of the Civil
Code was repealed by an Act of the
Legislature approved on the 18th of
July, 1874; also, that this is a civil
case, and the amount of damages
is not laid in the complaint; also,
that Nakamura Munataro had
brought suit against his master, w.
II. Purvis, before j. y. Miau, Dis
trict Justice of Hamakua, to cancel
the contract, on the ground that his
master owed him, but the District
Justice had not decided the case.
The answer further says that re-
spondent decided not to hear the
case because he was of opinion that
as the Act of July 10, 1874, repeal
ed call laws and parts of laws con-
sistent Herewith" it repealed sec
ton 1,423 of the Civil Code, and
the Court has now no jurisdiction to
try cases for infringement of con-
tracts, between masters and SER
wants. Also, that as the District
Justice had entertained the case of
the plaintiff against defendant and
decided against him in part and
held the case as regards the suit
SIS wages, the respondent decided
the case in favor of the defendant
and ordered him TO pay costs OF
$3.50,
The petitioner demurs to the an
swer, and AYERS that the Act of
1874, referred to in the answer,
only regulates the general jurisdlc-
ton of District Justices with re-
gard to civil cases founded on pc
cuniary demands, and has nothing
to do with the relations between
masters and servants, and ovel
WHICH the District Justices have 10y
law jurisdiction conferred upon
them. Also, that pending suit
for wages between the same parties
in the same Court is no bar to AZ
action to cancel the contract.
BY the Court--lt is to be regret
ted that the respondent has not ap
peared by counsel or person, bu
relies upon his answer. ! find from
the statement of petitioners counse
that j. T.. Miau, District Justice
declined to allow tie uniting Of Tie
two actions, one for wages and ont
to cancel the contract, and that il
all that was done by him, that thu
Deputy Justice A. w. Haalilio, whit
acted in the absence of Miau, hear(